RE: CASTLE LAW >Homeowner shoots and kills intruders

The San Marcos Police Department says they won’t file charges against a homeowner who shot and killed two teens who were attempting to rob his home overnight. A third teen was shot during the robbery and a fourth, now identified as Frank Castro, 17, is being held in jail on charges of aggravated robbery.

The four teens which were all from Luling, Texas, entered the San Marcos home shortly before 2 a.m. Friday on Chestnut Street just north of Texas State University. The home was occupied by three people, one of whom was a student at Texas State University.

The breakin made so much noise, it awoke one of the residents in his bedroom. The resident fired at one of the suspects after he pointed a gun at him.

The Luling teens, according to police, had one handgun and two “very realistic-looking” pellet guns. The resident hit three of the four suspects, and the fourth escaped. Police later arrested the 17-year-old nearby, who officials said was not injured in the incident.

One 16 year old was dead at the scene, and another later died at University Medical Center Breckenridge in Austin. The 17 year old was charged with aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony. His bail was set at $50,000.

This shooting brought up questions regarding the Castle Doctrine – which gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend their residence – and its application to the incident. Still, the San Marcos police chief said investigators still needed all the pieces to the puzzle before coming to a definite conclusion.

Other residents of the home were uninjured. Investigators said the residents of the rental property are between 18- and 23 years old, and one attends Texas State University. The San Marcos police chief said the department will work to keep students and others in the area from becoming victims of home invasions. Police won’t release the names of the three teens who were 16, as they are considered juveniles. The 17-year-old’s name is set to be released once he has been booked.

Related

Post navigation

104 Comments

newsdeskinternational

09/06/2009 – 1:15 pm

The Castle Law

To summarize, this is a law passed in Texas where homeowners can shoot to kill, if they or their property is threatened…point being of the man who killed two hispanics burglarizing his neighbor’s home while talking to the 911 dispatcher. The final verdict: Not guilty….

The shootings came fast, a bang-bang-bang cluster of cases starting in early autumn that quickly had police, prosecutors and the media wondering about the sudden impact of Texas’ new castle law.

A business owner who lives at his West Dallas welding shop killed two men in three weeks as they tried to break in.

A 79-year-old homeowner in east Oak Cliff, awakened by his dog, struggled with an intruder before grabbing a shotgun and wounding the man.

A retired Army warrant officer managed to kill a gun-wielding robber at a Far East Dallas dry cleaners after his wife surprised the intruder and handed her husband their own 9 mm handgun.

Texas has long had a reputation as a shoot-first-ask-questions-later place, dating back to its frontier days.

But the spate of shootings begs the question: Did the castle law – which gives people the right to use whatever means necessary to protect themselves and their property without fear of civil liability – unleash a flurry of gunfire?

Perhaps just as important, has the law changed people’s perceptions about fighting back? Are they more likely to shoot first even when safe retreat may be an option?

“I think the castle law has more citizens thinking about fighting back, knowing they’re protected from being sued later,” said Dallas homeowner Dennis Baker.

He shot and killed a burglar in October after seeing the man enter the garage where he stored thousands of dollars worth of tools.

But Dr. Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University, doesn’t think the castle law governs someone’s thinking when they hear a window softly opening late at night, or the crash of a door coming down in a home invasion.
“In situations in which people would be making a decision to use defensive violence, it’s very unlikely they’d be thinking about laws and penalties,” he said. “That would be the furthest thing from their mind.”

Certainly the castle law has become a high-profile addition to the Texas statutes since it took effect Sept. 1, but police and the district attorneys association argue that it brought little substantial change.

While it appeared to apply to each of these cases, so did a batch of other laws, along with the tradition of Texas juries giving people every benefit of the doubt when protecting themselves, their families and their property.

None of these property owners was charged. Police referred a few cases to the Dallas County grand jury, which declined to indict. In others, police determined that the shootings were justified.

Police’s take
And they see the rash of shootings as part of a normal cycle, not a trend.

Dallas police homicide investigators said they’ve yet to encounter a self-defense situation since the castle law took effect that would have been barred under previous laws.

“There may come a time when that’s not the case,” said Lt. Craig Miller. “But I would have to look at each of those under its own merits.”

Shannon Edmonds, director of governmental relations for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said he didn’t know of a single Texas case in which the castle law would have made a difference.

“The reality is Texas grand juries routinely no-billed deadly force cases under the old law, which was very lenient,” he said. “Many of the cases that you read about center on defense of property laws, which were always very, very lenient in the use of deadly force.

“That’s just how Texas is.”

Dr. Kleck said some states, including Texas, have legal systems with broad definitions of self-defense.

“There was a study of homicides in Houston sometime back,” he said, “and a huge percentage of those cases were defined as justifiable.

“But in the Northeast, another study showed that almost none of the cases there were justifiable under the law.”

Neighbor fights back
One Texas case in particular has attracted national attention, in part because of the circumstances: It was a neighbor, not the homeowner, confronting and killing a pair of burglars Nov. 14.

And the neighbor mentioned in a 911 call that a new law gave him the right to protect himself if he confronted the burglars.
The 61-year-old Pasadena man, Joe Horn, told the police operator: “The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.”

Seconds later, Mr. Horn can be heard saying, “Move, you’re dead,” followed by two shots and then a third.

“I had no choice,” Mr. Horn said in a second 911 call. “They came in the front yard with me, man.”

Was the castle law designed to cover those circumstances?

No, said the law’s author, state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio.

“You’re supposed to be able to defend your own home, your own family, in your house, your place of business or your motor vehicle,” he said – but not your neighbor’s.

But Mr. Edmonds said other property laws could provide a defense for Mr. Horn, whose case is under investigation.

“The laws governing the use of force to defend property instead of a person are very broad and very favorable to someone who wants to use that force,” Mr. Edmonds said.

Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code describes deadly force as justified to prevent arson, robbery, theft or criminal mischief at night, or to prevent a suspect from fleeing if the property owner “reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.”

“You hear someone stealing something off your front porch. You come out there with a gun, and they’re running off. It’s nighttime. The law in Texas allows you to shoot them,” said former Dallas County prosecutor Toby Shook.

Barker

09/08/2009 – 1:34 pm

good, 4 less on the streets…now maybe it will send a message to all other hoodlums out there. Criminal activity against our homes will not be tolerated.

newsdeskinternational

09/20/2009 – 10:06 am

Naked man, 91, holds drunken intruder at gunpoint

Authorities said a naked 91-year-old man was able to hold a drunken intruder at gunpoint until deputies arrived. Robert E. Thompson jumped out of bed early Saturday when his dog starting growling and attacking the intruder. He said he got his revolver and went out back to let the guy know how he felt about home invaders.

Thompson, a World War II veteran, said he didn’t even notice he was standing outside in the dark without any clothes on.

Authorities arrived to find a drunk intruder being held outside by a naked homeowner.

The 26-year-old intruder was booked into the Palm Beach County Jail on a burglary charge.

Sam Martian

10/20/2009 – 2:45 pm

I am a resident of San Marcos, Texas and student at Texas State University. The young man that shot the individuals breaking into his house is a known drug dealer. The kids from Luling had been at the house earlier in the day to buy drugs. While they were buying drugs at the house they stole the only real gun used in the robbery from the resident of the home that did the shooting. They returned later that night to rob the house for the drugs and guns present in the home. You should not be able to kill someone in defense of your criminal enterprise-Everyone involved should go to jail

newsdeskinternational

11/24/2009 – 9:15 am

With jump in home invasions, sheriff plans on hosting armed home defense course

Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Treviño says he has always been a proponent of home defense.

With that in mind, as well as a jump in home invasions against unsuspecting residents, the sheriff said he plans to launch a series of classes for the public to learn how to arm themselves and defend their families and property.

The state’s two-year-old castle law spells out citizens’ rights to aggressively defend their homes, businesses and cars from intruders.

But a Dallas case has raised important questions about whether the law clearly delineates the difference between mounting a forceful defense and exacting revenge.

When John David Alardin and his son John David Reza Jr. shot and killed two unarmed people, police pursued capital murder charges. This was the bloody end to an escalating feud that had stretched over a year and had flared repeatedly on the day of the shooting.

Warning shots had been fired as Alardin and his son clashed with Mario Garcia and Rafael Pacheco. A brick or another object had been thrown through a car window. A chase ensued.

When the shotgun- and assault-rifle-wielding father and son later shot their enemies dead, police called it murder. The shooters’ attorney called it a clear-cut case of self-defense.

But this wasn’t a matter of stranger danger or stopping a robbery in progress. The victims weren’t armed. They weren’t even on the shooters’ property yet.

Understandably, investigators seem bewildered that the castle law would be invoked in a case that appears to be centered on personal grudges – not necessarily on protecting one’s property.

As Dallas police homicide Sgt. Ray Beaudreault noted: “That really never crossed my mind that the castle law here would be a problem. … The actions were so aggressive, and the threats weren’t present because the victims had no weapons.”

A grand jury’s unwillingness to indict the shooters points up potential weaknesses in the castle law, which presumes that a person is acting reasonably if he shoots someone entering or attempting to enter the person’s home, business or car.

Texas needs a castle law to spell out the rights of property owners who come face to face with a potentially dangerous intruder. But as written, the statute could also give criminals a winning defense.

Legal experts have expressed concerns about the complications and confusion that could arise from including a presumption that favors defendants in the law. The father-son case, as well as a few others, raises questions that aren’t answered precisely in the statute:

Is a person attempting to unlawfully enter your property if he’s simply walking down the street? Does an intruder need to set foot on your property before you can use force to defend yourself? Does it matter if the person is unarmed?

While the law can’t anticipate every scenario or definitively answer every question, some weaknesses already have been exposed by its bizarre application in the Dallas case. Lawmakers should consider fine-tuning the castle law to make sure the statute simply protects property owners – instead of potentially providing cover to criminals. A citizen is presumed to be acting reasonably by using deadly force when someone enters or attempts to enter his occupied home, business or car. The law includes:

“… A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

• Unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment;

• Unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment; or

Earlier this month in the small rural town of Cushing, Oklahoma, 57-year-old Donna Jackson exercised her right to stand her ground in her house, killing an intruder. The drama played out over a phone call with a 911 emergency dispatcher.

The same thing could very well happen in Missouri and the homeowner would be protected from prosecution under a state law known as the Castle Doctrine. (More on that in a sec.)

“There’s a man at my back door and he’s trying to get in” Jackson told the dispatcher on December 4. “I have a shotgun and I will use it.”

The intruder, Billy Dean Riley, 53, was apparently intoxicated as he banged on the door, looking for his pick-up truck. The dispatcher recommended Jackson find a room to go lock herself into. Jackson refused.

“I’ve got a big shotgun, I’m not going in a tiny bathroom,” Jackson said. “Oh crap he’s at the back.”

The dispatcher told Jackson she was in her legal right to shoot Riley.

On August 28, 2007, the Castle Doctrine went into effect in Missouri. The law, stemming from English Common Law, says the occupant of a home, inhabited building or conveyance of any kind, has the right to use deadly force against an illegal intruder. An occupant has no duty to retreat before grabbing the shotgun and unleashing the lead

In the most basic terms, your home is your castle and you have the right to defend it.

Oklahoma has a similar, albeit less restrictive law, that mandates no duty to retreat — anywhere.

“I don’t want to have to kill this man but I’ll kill him graveyard dead,” Jackson responded.

Riley threw a patio table through a plate glass door and Jackson opened up. The sound of breaking glass, followed by a single shotgun blast can be heard on the tape.

Jackson, noticeably shaken, begs for forgiveness.

“Please dear God I think I killed him. Please, father in heaven.”

Riley had a long rap sheet of drug and alcohol violations. His pick-up truck was found crashed in a ditch. Riley’s sister, Patricia, was passed out in the passenger seat.

Riley took a blast to the chest — he was graveyard dead.

newsdeskinternational

01/04/2010 – 11:32 am

Interest grows in gun ownership, self-defense

LAS CRUCES — Only one armed theft in 2009 required the use of deadly force in Las Cruces, but the number of people interested in learning those skills has been growing, according to Las Cruces weapons instructor Coralie Carrier.

The morning of Dec. 27, witnesses told police two men tried to break into an apartment at Telshor Manor Apartments at 1410 Telshor Blvd. A 26-year-old resident was apparently startled awake, grabbed a handgun, and opened fire at the intruders, according to police.

Steve Anthony Martinez, 27, a convicted burglar, was found dead of gunshot wounds outside the apartment.

Carrier, of SafeInLC.com, thinks the increase in interest is due to danger brought about by rising poverty, dwindling opportunities to earn a living, and a recognition that police can’t be everywhere all the time.

New Mexico residents can legally respond with the level of threat that is being leveled against them, said District Attorney Susana Martinez.

“For example, someone comes into my home and I take out my gun and they start to attack me, I can use deadly force, but if someone is breaking into my car, can I shoot them? No, because you have to be confronted with deadly force,” Martinez said. In the Dec. 27 case, the alleged victim “was at home, in bed and a man stood in the doorway of his bedroom with a knife held over his head and he had means of protecting himself and the other person in the room.”

That’s the difference between New Mexico law and Texas’s “Castle Doctrine,” which includes responding with lethal force to threats against property, she said.
“We certainly have the right — as human beings and as citizens of this state — to defend ourselves from deadly force,” Martinez said.

That legal aspect of self-defense is bringing a growing number of students to Carrier, a firearms instructor for 27 years and the president of the Picacho Gun Club.

“We do run into a lot of people who think, “By golly, this is my home and I’ll do anything,’ to the other extreme, which is afraid to do anything,” Carrier said. “Self-defense is legal, generally, I teach. Before you can truly defend yourself, you must be in fear of immediate, grave, bodily harm and whenever that criteria is met, you can use lethal force to defend yourself, a family member or a third party.”

New Mexico’s laws are fairer than most states to gun owners, Carrier said, and certainly more protective than states that require an obligation to retreat or announce your intention to use deadly force.

However, one can’t legally shoot someone menacing them from outside their door or a robber whose arms are full of stolen stereo equipment, Carrier noted.

“In New Mexico, only human life is defensible with deadly force,” Carrier said. “If you can retreat, that’s the smartest thing to do. None of us want to get into a lethal or near-lethal confrontation … Sometimes, just showing the gun is enough. We all teach that if a burglar or assailant turns to run, it’s better to let him get away.”

No charges are being sought against the burglary victim who fired the handgun Dec. 27.

Immediately after the shooting, Mario Lee Aguilera, 25, of the 2400 block of Moonriver Loop, and Jesus Manuel Vazquez, 27, of the 5800 block of Lassiter Road, were arrested when a Doña Ana sheriff’s deputy pulled Aguilera over for expired tags. He and Vazquez, who also had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, were found covered in blood. Aguilera was charged with aggravated burglary with a deadly weapon and conspiracy, while Vazquez was charged with having an open container of alcohol.

The three men had been partying when Martinez, a habitual offender on probation after a felony conviction for heroin possession, according to court records, asked for a ride to collect money — which allegedly led to him leading the way breaking into the apartment.

At the time of the shooting, Aguilera was on probation after being convicted of felony home burglary, larceny, tampering with evidence and possession of burglary tools in 2004. He was also convicted of felony embezzlement and aggravated assault, according to court records. Aguilera and Vazquez remained Wednesday at the Doña Ana County Detention Center, with bond set at $50,000 each.

Other armed thefts in 2009 in Las Cruces have ended with no arrests — and injuries for the victims.

On Jan. 13, 2009, an East Mesa man returned home to find three attackers, wearing ski masks, hiding in his bathroom — two of which rushed him, one of whom struck him in the forehead with a golf club as the three demanded money and subsequently fled on ATVs. No arrests were ever made in that incident.

Another Las Cruces man was airlifted to University Medical Center of El Paso after he was injured while trying to stop a burglar July 15 in the Sonoma Ranch neighborhood, according to a neighbor.

Police also continue to search for 28-year-old Rudy Portillo and an unknown accomplice, who allegedly robbed a man in his car at gunpoint on Dec. 3 in Anthony, N.M. Portillo’s passenger allegedly pointed a 9 mm handgun at the victim, struck him on the side of the head and demanded money and for the man to get out of his car. The passenger allegedly struck the man five times in the head with the butt of the gun when he didn’t immediately respond, then attempted to pull him from the vehicle, punched him six times in the face and kicked him twice in the stomach and once in the face. The two allegedly took the man’s cell phone and $40 in cash.

newsdeskinternational

01/11/2010 – 12:08 pm

Self defense: A right with a responsibility?

As the old adage about protecting one’s property says, “A man’s home is his castle.”

What’s not said is exactly how far he (or she) can go to safeguard a home – or even more vaguely, a car or family.

It’s a complex question, as evidenced by two high-profile area cases in recent weeks.

The first, on Dec. 27, involved a St. Louis man who allegedly shot and killed an 18-year-old who was attempting to steal the man’s truck.

The next day, two St. Louis police officers shot and killed a man who they said fired at them, but who may have believed he was shooting at an intruder.

While later reports revealed that the victim of the Dec. 28 shooting had a stolen gun and drugs, the incidents raise a striking question: how far can someone go to legally defend themselves or a property? And, if an incident escalates, how can they avoid being mistaken by police for a bad guy?

The answer, it turns out, is far from obvious.

“It’s not a cut-and-dry issue,” said Sgt. John Fulton, of the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department. He said home protection is a thorny issue, with countless variables and even more unclear answers. “You have to remember there is a whole lot of responsibility.”

What is clear – and what prosecutors and cops agree on – is that people generally have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones with deadly force under two broad categories: self-defense and to protect one’s dwelling.

Under self-defense, a person must have a reasonable believe that they or someone else is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.

“You have to believe you are about to die or suffer severe injury, and the only reasonable way to prevent your death or serious injury is to take lethal force,” said Maj. Jeff Connor, of the Granite City Police Department. “Lethal force may not end up in lethal action, but it’s a force that is capable of taking someone’s life.”

Under the other scenario, deadly force is allowed to stop an unlawful entry into a dwelling if a homeowner thinks the intruder’s intent is to commit a felony, said Madison County State’s Attorney William Mudge. (Breaking into vehicles doesn’t count.) But Mudge, a former defense attorney, also said the act of breaking into a home is itself a felony.

“If someone is breaking into your home, you can shoot them,” he said. “A man’s home is his castle, and I think our laws continue to recognize that.”

What to tell the dispatcher

And that’s where it gets complicated. While “lethal force” is usually considered any object that can kill, the vast majority of weapons used in defending a property are guns. In fact, about half of gun-owners say self-defense is the primary reason they own a weapon, according to a 1997 Department of Justice report.

It’s impossible to know how many times guns are pulled for self-defense, but some studies peg the number as high as 2.5 million times a year. Other reports place the number closer to 100,000.

In the Metro East, a few instances of armed self-defense over the years have received media attention, but they are rare. One factor is that unlike Missouri, where concealed firearms are allowed, Illinois law generally limits people to carrying loaded weapons on their own property or business.

In all cases, police said that whether someone has a gun in a house is a major factor in how they respond to a call of an intruder. For homeowners, it’s vital to let authorities know whether they’re armed.

“When you go to it knowing there is a weapon or shots fired, you’re going to be more prepared as you exit your squad car, as opposed to going to a call where somebody heard something outside their house,” said Connor, the Granite City police official.

When an incident happens, he said, homeowners should call 911 and tell police they are armed and what they are wearing. If someone else calls, they might only report that shots were fired, which could lead to deadly confusion.

Connor, an assistant chief with the department, said the more information a dispatcher has, the more can be relayed to officers, allowing them to make better decisions.

“When there is a miscommunication, either by the homeowner not relaying the correct situation or not getting to the police officer, then you get into a situation where an officer pulls up and there is confusion, and he has to make a decision based on what’s in front of them,” Connor added. “If it’s a person with a gun and they’re firing it, they have to think about themselves and protect themselves.”

He also said that the dispatchers are going to advise the homeowner to put the weapon down once the threat is gone, and that they should stay put.

It’s also incredibly important that homeowners not go outside unless absolutely necessary – including chasing intruders, said Madison Police Chief Steve Shelby. “That’s not a good idea,” he said.

That’s because a fleeing suspect is no longer considered a threat, complicating the legal issues, said Fulton, of the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department. When a threat is gone, citizens no longer have the right to continue using force, opening themselves up to criminal charges and the possibility of being sued.

“You could become the aggressor,” Fulton said.

The confusion factor

But the bigger threat – the one outlined by the Dec. 28 officer shooting in St. Louis – is that chasing suspects can complicate things for police at the scene.

That’s what happened in September 2002, when a man dressed as a U.S. Postal worker broke into a home and started attacking a woman with a stun gun in Madison. A passerby heard the struggle and ran in to help the woman.

“He walked up and grabbed one of those gargoyles that were sitting on the front porch and hit” the suspect, recalled Shelby, the Madison police chief.

The suspect left in a daze. The passerby, who was also carrying a handgun, chased after him and fired a warning shot before subduing the suspect. However, the initial 911 call received by police was that an armed man was attacking a postal worker. Police eventually sorted the situation out, but it could have ended much differently, Shelby said.

“There’s no way in all the excitement for a police officer to know who is the victim and who is the perpetrator,” he said. “How do you know? You pull up on these scenes and have to make split decisions.”

Ironically, the passerby, was not only illegally carrying the gun, but was a convicted felon. However, no charges were ever filed against him.

“The way they were looking at it, this guy was definitely in the wrong, but what would the public outcry be if a guy goes out of his way to help somebody, then you charge him with a felony,” Shelby said.

He noted that police “sat him down” and had a talk after the incident.

Shelby also noted that in general, police and prosecutors would probably not be overly concerned about minor points of law in legitimate self-defense situations.

“If you’re trying to protect yourself,” he said, “that’s not a big issue for us.”

When deadly force may be used

? A person has a “reasonable belief” of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm

? If someone is breaking into a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony

Source: Madison County State’s Attorney Office

newsdeskinternational

01/23/2010 – 1:00 pm

Homeowner shoots would-be intruder dead in Vegas

Las Vegas police say a homeowner shot and killed an intruder who kicked in the front door of his house northwest of downtown Las Vegas.

Roberts says the homeowner called police and said he shot a man who was trying to break into his house.

Officers found the dead man’s body in the doorway. His identity was not immediately made public by the Clark County coroner.

Police say the homeowner heard a noise at the front of the house, where he confronted and shot the would-be intruder.

newsdeskinternational

02/05/2010 – 8:27 pm

Loosening gun laws for self-defense unnecessary, critics argue

Law enforcement officials shot holes Thursday in a proposal that would give citizens more legal leeway to defend themselves with a gun, saying it was unnecessary and would increase shootings.

“We have enough people in the state killing each other. This will make it easier,” Howard County Attorney Bob Sivick said. “I don’t think that’s good public policy.”

Sivick and a deputy chief of the Omaha Police Department both testified in opposition to the measure, LB889, introduced by State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial.

Proponents of the bill, which included the National Rifle Association, said current state law might force people who killed someone in self-defense on their own property or car to defend themselves again against manslaughter or murder charges or against a civil lawsuit.

“Rights are turned around (in Nebraska). It’s up to an individual to prove they’re innocent,” Jordan Austin, an NRA lobbyist, told the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

Austin said 25 states have adopted “castle doctrine” laws such as LB 889. The name comes from the phrase “a man’s home is his castle” and refers to a person’s rights to defend his or her “castle” from intruders or deadly threats.

He said of particular concern was a requirement in Nebraska law that people must refrain from using deadly force if they can safely retreat.

While they aren’t required to retreat from their home or business, proponents said the bill would clarify that they would not have to retreat from their car or from outside their home, either.

“This is not a bill that encourages a ‘make my day’ situation. It doesn’t encourage anyone to shoot their neighbor,” said Andreas Allen of Omaha, president of the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association.

But opponents of the bill said it was unnecessary because there have been no problems under current self-defense laws.

Under questioning by Omaha Sen. Brenda Council, the NRA lobbyist and others acknowledged that they were unaware of any cases in which a person had been prosecuted for failure to retreat from a self-defense shooting.

Council said that while she supports the right of self-defense, LB 889 seemed to open the door for a person to escape liability after shooting someone simply out of a suspicion that the intruder might be contemplating a burglary.

Sivick said the proposal would provide defense attorneys with more avenues to free someone from murder charges and might even complicate prosecutions of gang shootings.

Omaha Deputy Police Chief Todd Schmaderer said the bill seemed to address a “nonexistent problem” and presented an “opportunity for abuse” in terms of more shootings.

The Judiciary Committee took no action on LB 889 after the hearing, and Christensen acknowledged the bill might need amendments.

Kearneyhub.com

newsdeskinternational

02/05/2010 – 8:31 pm

Debate Begins Over Homeowners’ Use Of Deadly Force
Legislative Measure Would Allow Deadly Force Against Intruders

A man jailed for hitting an intruder with a cricket bat after a knife gang held his family hostage was freed today after a public outcry.

The 30-month sentence imposed on Munir Hussain, 53, of High Wycombe, was reduced to two years and the term was suspended. His brother, Tokeer Hussain, 35, had his 39-month term cut to two years but will remain in jail.

Three Appeal Court judges ruled that the case was one of “true exceptionality”. It was hailed as a victory by campaigners for the right of homeowners to defend their family and property.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge admitted the “calls for mercy” for the Hussains had been “intense and must be answered”. Munir Hussain’s son Awais said his family was “extremely grateful” to the judges for their decision, adding: “It will be great to have my father home immediately and my thoughts are with my uncle.”

The brothers, described as family men and businessmen at the heart of their community, were jailed last month after being found guilty at Reading crown court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Munir and his wife and children had returned from their mosque to find masked intruders in their home. He feared for their lives as their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room.

He escaped after throwing a coffee table at the gang and enlisted his brother to help chase them down the street, bringing one of them to the ground. What followed was described in court as self-defence which went too far, leaving intruder Walid Salem, 56, with brain injuries after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard it broke into three pieces. Salem was the only intruder caught after the incident but his injuries meant he was not fit to plead after being charged with false imprisonment. He was given a two-year supervision order. However prosecution lawyers have now hinted they may reconsider charges against him as his condition has apparently improved.

Neither brother was present in court for the ruling. The decision to free Munir was made by the same judges who yesterday rejected his bid to appeal against conviction.

Lord Judge said the principle “that you cannot take the law into your own hands without punishment,” must be upheld . He added: “The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them.” There was no dispute that professional criminal Salem “was subjected to a very serious attack”.

He added: “This is not a case about the level of violence which a householder may lawfully and justifiably use on a burglar. So far as both these appellants was concerned the purpose of their violence was revenge — to teach at least one of the burglars a lesson … such violence is not lawful and no one at the trial suggested it was.”

newsdeskinternational

02/17/2010 – 8:55 pm

Stolen Lives

When laws are referenced by Clint Eastwood movie lines, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider the policy. In the United States, “Castle Doctrine”, or “Make my Day Law”, gives liberal scope for homeowners to use violence against burglars as seen fit. Meanwhile, in Britain, where it’s legal to kill a burglar if you have to, but not if you want to, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge has just overturned the sentence of Munir Hussein, who chased a burglar down the street and gave him brain damage. The issue is delicate, mediating self-defense and personal revenge; consequentially, there’s an uncertain policy in Britain, and a dubious one in the United States. Self-defense is a priority, but a firm line must be drawn to prevent the burgled from simply taking the law into their own hands.

Legislative staff members with a permit to carry a concealed weapon could bring them into the state Capitol under legislation given first-round approval Tuesday by the House.

The measure was included in broader gun legislation that loosens Missouri’s restrictions on carry concealed weapons and expands the right of potential crime victims to use deadly force against their attackers. The legislation was approved 125-19 and needs another vote before moving to the Senate.

Lawmakers and local government officials who have a conceal-carry permit can already bring a concealed weapon to their meetings. Rep. Jeanie Riddle, a Republican from Mokane, said allowing staff with permits to bring concealed guns into the Capitol is “merely an extension of what the rights are for General Assembly members.”

Missouri began issuing conceal-carry permits in 2004. Currently, applicants for a permit must be at least 23 years old, live in the state, have no felony convictions and pass a firearms training course and background check. The permit must be renewed after three years.

Under the bill endorsed Tuesday, the minimum age would be lowered to 21. About two-thirds of states offer concealed weapon permits to people who are at least 21 years old. Other states allow them to be issued at age 18.

The legislation would make ineligible for a concealed weapon permit anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanors for domestic violence. Currently, violent misdemeanors disqualify an applicant for five years.

The broader gun legislation also expands Missouri’s “castle doctrine” law to cover apartments and rental properties. The “castle doctrine” law says there is no duty to retreat from a home or vehicle if an intruder enters illegally.

newsdeskinternational

04/26/2010 – 9:11 am

Just as we have the “Castle Laws” here in the US., it also pertains to Britain…..

Boy who killed burglar tells of fight for justice

BRAVE Omari Roberts, the lad dramatically cleared this week after stabbing a burglar to death, has told for the first time of his horrific ordeal, battling the villains AND British justice.

Florida law properly recognizes the centuries-old “castle doctrine,” i.e., the right of an individual to use deadly force to protect his residence from a violent intruder. But what if that castle is a den of iniquity?

Florida is one of about two dozen states to have a law based on the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which allows homeowners to use force—even deadly force—to protect themselves or their property. But last week’s shooting at a home in Southport involves circumstances that law enforcement officials say cloud the issue.

The hubbub over the proposed law (a version of the “Castle Doctrine”) to remove the duty to retreat from Pennsylvania law (“Gun bill worrisome,” June 4) reminds me of the jaw-flapping we heard upon the impending sunset of the Clinton “assault weapon” ban. Police chiefs throughout the country predicted dire consequences, such as blood flowing in the streets, if that ban were not extended. And before that, we heard predictions of a return to the Wild West if law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves. Those predictions did not come true, either. In fact, just the opposite occurred: crime dropped.

Kansas removed the duty to retreat from its use of force statutes and added a general statement that a person not engaged in illegal activity who is attacked in a place where he has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force. Florida, in its castle law, includes a presumption that a person who illegally or forcefully enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with intent to commit an illegal act involving force or violence.

Even Maryland, that bastion of anti-gun laws, recently passed a law to provide immunity from civil actions for a person who is justified in using force or deadly physical force. They require a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, compensation for lost income, and expenses if the court finds that the person acted lawfully and is immune from prosecution.
Have the York area police chiefs’ fears materialized in any of nearly half the states which have implemented the Castle Doctrine?

The only people who should find Pennsylvania’s new gun bill worrisome are perpetrators of violence to law-abiding victims.

Just like clockwork, we can always count on Arthur Hayhoe to chime in with his biased and uninformed anti-gun rhetoric (“Victory for gun control,” Letter of the Day, July 1). Hayhoe makes no attempt to hide his contempt for and abhorrence of the Second Amendment. But, in the minds of liberals like Hayhoe, supporting certain parts of the Constitution while demonizing other parts is par for the course.

Howard Strickland stabbed Anthony Pignataro in the abdomen with a pocket knife during an argument outside a keg party near Cocoa just days before Christmas in 2007. Rescuers flew Pignataro to a hospital in Melbourne, but he died later that morning from
his injuries.

On its surface, the shooting that occurred in Newberry Township early Sunday morning may bear some distinct similarities to the “castle doctrine” scenario.
About 5 a.m., Dustin Mckinley pursued Roger P. Becker, who police say stole Mckinley’s pickup from his home on Cly Road. Mckinley fired a shot in the air, then angled another truck in front of the fleeing truck, police said. Mckinley called 911 and told dispatchers he was holding Becker at gunpoint.

South Carolina is one of more than 20 states to adopt strong “castle doctrine” laws to protect citizens from criminal prosecution and civil liability if they use deadly force to repel an intruder. In 2006, state lawmakers codified the doctrine, …

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation sponsored by state Senator Rich Alloway, R-33, to expand the Castle Doctrine in Pennsylvania. “This is an important step to help protect responsible, law-abiding gun owners who take action to prevent …

Expansion of Castle Doctrine would keep victims from ‘second guessing’

Scott Perry, R-Dillsburg, has proposed an expansion of the Castle Doctrine because he says it would give crime victims a better opportunity to protect themselves. “That’s no time for victims to be second-guessing,” he said. Law-abiding citizens should …

A 44-year-old Upper Moreland man attempted to proclaim “Castle Law” after he twice pulled a gun on his brother-in-law who was confronting him about alleged domestic violence. Police said a man called 911 to report that his brother-in-law, Joseph Donald …

The state Senate has passed its version of the Castle Doctrine expansion, and the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of the second reading of a similar version. Gov. Tom Corbett has said he will sign the legislation. n “The problem is this bill …

There is a principle, called the Castle Doctrine, which essentially says your home is your castle and that it is fully within your right to protect it and all that is within it. My guess is that the “fathers” who created confederation, who wrote the …

Under state law, the castle doctrine allows people to use lethal force to defend themselves in their homes without taking any steps in retreat. This legislation would extend that to outdoors and allow people to defend themselves against an attacker …

By extending the “castle doctrine,” which gives armed homeowners the right to shoot an intruder, lawmakers are risking deadly confrontations in any public setting. More road-rage incidents could prove lethal, with armed motorists claiming they were …

Both DAs said the existing law is enough for them to be able to rule truly justifiable homicides correctly. And if the Legislature passes the updated “Castle Doctrine” it won’t change that. Nearly identical Castle Doctrine bills recently passed …

That the legislature would approve some version of the Castle Doctrine, which provides more legal protections to people who shoot intruders entering their home, became a foregone conclusion. Legislation allowing concealed handgun permit-holders to take …

The proposal is based on the Castle Doctrine, a legal doctrine which allows a person to use deadly force against an intruder in his or her home in self-defense. Many states, including Minnesota, have such laws. But supporters of the bill say the Castle …

The Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine legislation, House Bill 40, is necessary to restore our rights that have been violated by current law, which is not aligned with our constitutionally-affirmed God-given right to defend our lives, loved ones and property …

The Castle Doctrine is just one part of Minnesota State Bill (HF 1467). In part it protects Minnesotans against unlawful confiscation of weapons by government authorities. This is a safe bill for everyone in an emergency who may not live while waiting …

Experts not sure expanding ‘Castle Doctrine’ will reduce crime, some believe it could do the opposite. HARRISBURG — When Florida lawmakers in 2005 made their state one of the first to significantly expand its citizens’ self-defense rights, …

A self-defense bill, known as the Castle Doctrine, would shield people from unfair prosecution. Under legislation at the state capitol, a person can claim self-defense after hurting or killing a home intruder; …

The political games being played in our General Assembly are becoming sillier by the hour, but this may work in our favor in-terms of getting desperately-needed Castle Doctrine and Carry in Parks legislation passed. These laws have now been “hidden” in …

The only exception to that duty of retreat was outlined in the Castle Doctrine. A person inside of their home, on their property, or in their car was not expected to retreat. The amended version of the law eliminates a person’s duty to retreat in …

Republicans, Democrats, and an unaffiliated member of the General Assembly voted for the bill; the governor signed it into law. Some provisions were removed and some added, but it is now more convenient for law-abiding citizens and the Castle Doctrine …

The bill is built on the Castle Doctrine, which says a person has no duty to retreat from intruders at home before using deadly force. The bill would expand that principle to using deadly force in public anyplace the person has a right to be. …

State Rep. Tim Mahoney said the Castle Doctrine covers a dwelling (including porch, deck or patio), residence (defined as any dwelling in which a person resides, temporarily or permanently or visits as an invited guest) or occupied vehicle.

James Babe shot and killed during alleged home burglary in Town of Oconomowoc

Police in the Town of Oconomowoc continue to look into a fatal shooting of 39-year-old James Babe. One of their tasks is to determine whether it was a case of self defense or murder. The shooter said his attorney wouldn’t let him say much, but described the event as a matter of saving himself and his personal property.

A bill to be considered on the floor of the Wisconsin Assembly would strengthen the law known as the Castle doctrine, allowing a person who kills or injuries someone breaking in their home, business or car to claim self-defense.

Wisconsin senators voted 26-to-7 this afternoon to let homeowners avoid criminal or civil punishment for killing burglars and other unwanted intruders. The Assembly approved the so-called “castle doctrine” on Tuesday – and the bill’s going back to the lower house for approval of a Democratic amendment which was added today.

Authorities don’t plan to file charges against an Oklahoma woman who fatally shot a New Year’s Eve intruder at her house while she had a 911 dispatcher on the phone, but the intruder’s alleged accomplice has been charged in the death.

A Minnesota bill that could be sent to the governor next week would sharply expand the circumstances under which people can use deadly force when they feel threatened, a measure that law enforcement groups call a recipe for getting away with murder.

It is now official. Virginia lawmakers have said it no to legislation for virginians to shoot and kill intruders who threaten them. The General Assembly on Wednesday rejected two bills that would have written centuries of common law, known as the “castle doctrine,” into the state code.

So this means that criminals win this round. One of the bills would protect people from criminal prosecution. The House of Delegates killed the measure at the request of its sponsor. The Senate sent it back to committee, effectively killing it for the year.

Lawmakers said more study is needed. So if someone breaks into your home in virginia, you can’t shoot them, even if they are armed, and threaten you. Where’s the logic in that?

Janet

03/19/2012 – 10:39 am

‘Stand Your Ground’ law: What’s legal?

At the center of the controversy surrounding the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin is a Florida law that changed America’s definition of self-defense.

The “Stand Your Ground” law, which enables people who perceive a threat to use deadly force without first trying to retreat from a confrontation, was a landmark when it passed in 2005. Since then, 16 more states have adopted similar laws, which are far more lenient than the widely adopted “Castle Doctrine,” which allows people to defend themselves in their homes.

So, if you defend yourself, and kill a black man or anyone of minority race, if that person behaves in a threatening manner, forcing you to shoot and defend yourself, you are the criminal, not them.

Wisconsin shooting puts “castle” law under scrutiny

The decision by authorities not to charge a homeowner who shot dead an unarmed black man in a small Wisconsin town three weeks ago has drawn scrutiny to the state’s new “castle doctrine” law and comparisons to the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida.

Typical liberal thinking, tuck your tail between your legs and run, even as a criminal keeps advancing. And always, making it racism, by using the Florida shooting as an excuse.

Texas Lawmaker Seeks Changes to Self-Defense Law

A Texas lawmaker plans to introduce legislation to amend the state’s self-defense “Castle Doctrine” law in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida, according to a report by KHOU-TV in Houston.

Now we have more than 25 states that have these Castle Laws or Stand Your Ground Laws. It seems to be working to an extent, and is an extension of gun rights laws. But don’t hold your breath, as now because many law abiding citizens are using these laws, it’s drawing so much criticizm from anti gunners that it stinks. At least with such laws, innocents have a fighting chance against criminals. Taking away those rights won’t stop the criminals.

But then the do gooders are at it, in their round about way, by saying that the NRA is pushing for these laws, and the extensions. Hey, so what? Granted, some may go a bit too far, but doesn’t everyone have the right to protect their lives, families, and what is theirs, instead of having it taken away in the blink of an eye, as a criminal inflicts bodily harm? Criminals we know have no respect for the rights or property of others, and making the situation one sided isn’t the answer.

And owning a gun doesn’t make one a vigilante, nor does the old addage: shoot first and ask questions later apply. In the event a crime is being committed, one has but one split second to make that decision – protect, or allow the perpetrator the advantage. And today, New York City Mayor Bloomberg is joining forces with the NAACP and other groups to try and get many of these laws amended or repealed. I knew it wouldn’t be long racism would enter the equation, as notice, many of these suspects shot and killed have been either blacks or hispanics. But the same rules apply to whites: you attempt to commit a crime, expect payback.

And the anti gunners are quick to spread panic among the general public, by protraying those who own guns as possibly becoming a killer. Just show a gun in public and people panic, as the fear has been instilled in them through these fearmongers. Where do we draw the line?

N.R.A.’s Influence Seen in Expansion of Self-Defense Laws

No one had yet heard of a Florida teenager named Trayvon Martin when a group of Wisconsin Republicans got together last year to discuss expanding a self-defense bill before the State Legislature.

Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves – even in public places – and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.

At least your law abiding citizen now stands a chance at surviving violent crimes, and the perpetrators are paying the price. Granted a few may go overboard, but people should be able to defend themselves against crime, or even prevent it from happening.

Since Texas expanded its “Castle Doctrine” in 2007 — also known as “Stand Your Ground” law in some states — justifiable killings in the Lone Star state have reportedly increased from 32 in 2006 to 48 in 2010.

Yes, I believe we should be able to use deadly force, but only if it is genuine self-defense. The Devil is in the details, especially when you put these cases under the microscope of scrutiny, because a lot of them don’t meet the test. My grandson was killed, unarmed, in what was called a castle law situation, but that happened less than a week before his court date as a prosecution witness! I’m pretty sure that he was murdered (and a lot of other people agree). The statistics just now coming out of Florida are appalling: of 119 who claimed “stand your ground” when they shot and killed an “intruder,” almost 60% have had serious prior arrest records. See:

Weigh this situation very carefully, because it will be used as an excuse for removing our Second Amendment rights. It is potentially more threatening to the Second Amendment than the recent theater shooting spree in Colorado.

Janet

08/13/2012 – 7:37 pm

Interesting reading. But how can a bunch of drunks remember what actually happened?

Even in self-defense, can you afford to pull the trigger?

As he sat in a holding cell, Bryce Fortier overheard a police officer say he would be charged with murder.

Hundreds of New Hampshire residents turned out at a public hearing Tuesday to oppose a bill to repeal the state’s stand-your-ground gun law, arguing that it would deny them the right to defend themselves in public.

No Shots Fired: Home Intruders Decide Not to Stick Around After Seeing Their ‘Victim’ Holding an AR-15

Two home intruders, one holding a handgun, broke into a New York apartment on Tuesday and waited at the bottom of the stairs for a potential “victim” to come down. While their intentions are unknown, it is clear they were criminals up to no good.

The U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has sided with defenders of the Second Amendment, ruling that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to bear arms and that states cannot unreasonably restrict that right.